Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36186923›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2022

An impact model to understand and improve work-life balance in early-career researchers in radiation oncology.

Carina Pittens, Jennifer Dhont, Steven Petit, Ludwig Dubois, Pierfrancesco Franco, Laura Mullaney, Marianne Aznar, Violet Petit-Steeghs, Jenny Bertholet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Carina PittensAthena Institute, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Jennifer DhontDepartment of Medical Physics, Institut Jules Bordet, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), Brussels, Belgium.
Steven PetitEuropean Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) Young Committee, Brussels, Belgium.
Ludwig DuboisEuropean Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) Young Committee, Brussels, Belgium.
Pierfrancesco FrancoEuropean Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) Young Committee, Brussels, Belgium.
Laura MullaneyEuropean Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) Young Committee, Brussels, Belgium.
Marianne AznarDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Violet Petit-SteeghsErasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Jenny BertholetEuropean Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) Young Committee, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial effect on mental health and work productivity of early-career researchers working in Radiation Oncology (RO). However, the underlying mechanisms of these effects are unclear. The aim of the current qualitative study was therefore to achieve a better understanding of how these effects arose and could be managed in the future. Methods: This study was conducted jointly by RO and qualitative health researchers. Data was collected in four online Focus Groups with 6-11 RO researchers (total N = 31) working in Europe. The transcripts were analysed through a qualitative cross-impact analysis. Results: Causal relations were identified between seventeen variables that depict the impact of disrupted working conditions. Mental health and work productivity were indeed the most important affected variables, but relations between variables towards these impacts were complex. Relations could either be positive or negative and direct or indirect, leading to a cascade of interrelated events which are highly personal and could change over time. We developed the model 'impact of disrupted working conditions' depicting the identified variables and their relations, to allow more individual assessment and personalised solutions. Conclusion: The impacts of disrupted working conditions on RO researchers varied due to the complexity of interrelated variables. Consequently, collective actions are not sufficient, and a more personal approach is needed. Our impact model is recommended to help guide conversations and reflections with the aim of improving work/life balance. The participants showed high levels of personal responsibility towards their own mental health and work productivity. Although being an individual issue, a collective responsibility in developing such approaches is key due to the dependency on organizational variables.

Indexed as

Early-careerMental healthQualitative researchWorking conditions

Identifiers

PMID36186923
PMCPMC9523090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.